Rules & Tools for Scientific Editing

AMWA-MAC ConferenceGaithersburg, Maryland

March 13, 2015

Martin J Spiering, PhD, ELSCSR, Incorporated, Arlington, VA

What is Scientific Editing?

• Editing of scientific documents (journal manuscripts, grant proposals, dissertations, slides, textbooks, etc.)

• Editing for content, language, and presentation

Scientific Editing Addresses Factors Important for Manuscript Quality

Survey of 30 journal editors (Hing et al., J Orthop Surg Res. 6:19, 2011)

Manuscript factors Percentage scoreManuscript is understandable 73%Manuscript is well written 53%Thorough literature review 50%References papers from my journal 40%

No financial conflict of interest 37%

Key factors for manuscript acceptance

Scientific Editors Ensure……that a document is

• accurate• clear• brief

They help authors use a voice that clearly and competently speaks to the audience

Opportunities for Scientific Communication Specialists

Time to leave academic writing to communications experts?

(http://www.ivacheung.com/2015/02/time-to-leave-academic-writing-to-communications-experts)

How To Add Value?

One Approach: “Analytical Editing”

“In addition to questions about the language, we can also question the assumptions,

documentation, and implications of the research.”

Tom Lang, AMWA Journal 28(3):105–109, 2013

Analytical Editing

“Question the assumptions, documentation, and implications

of the research.”

“Investigative” editing — overlaps with/augments scholarly peer review

Assumptions• Have the authors sufficiently reviewed

the literature/is it relevant to the current study?

Probing Literature ReviewSome authors start too general:“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1).”

Some start too specific:“The role of gene X in disease Y affecting people with condition Z caused by zinc deficiency remains enigmatic (Smith et al. 2010 & 10 other citations).”

Probing Literature ReviewSome authors do not lay out the background early and in one place; leads to disjointed, hurried writing:E.g., from Discussion:“We observed that gene X influences the severity of disease Y. In this regard, it is noteworthy that earlier studies have found a possible involvement of pathway Z in…”

Literature ReviewBetter to say in Introduction:“Gene X influences the severity of disease Y, but its precise role is unknown. One possibility is that gene X is involved in pathway Z.”And then in Discussion:“We confirmed that gene X influences the severity of disease Y and established that gene X controls disease severity through pathway Z.”

Assumptions• Have the authors sufficiently reviewed

the literature/is it relevant to the current study?

• What is the central research question/hypothesis?

(Mis)stating the Research QuestionA cardinal mistake: not to clearly and briefly say why the study was done

At the end of an Introduction:“Many studies recently conducted in the 2000s have reported that gene X is highly involved in a variety of diseases such as disease Y, negatively affecting patients worldwide. In this paper, we set out to extensively explore the plausible role of the gene X in disease and disease-associated pathways, such as pathway Z, and symptoms.”

State the Research Question

Say it clearly and succinctly:“Previous studies have suggested a role for gene X in disease Y. Here, we tested the hypothesis that gene X controls the severity of disease Y. We also report that gene X exerts its control through pathway Z.”

(Mis)stating the Research Question

Do not send mixed/unclear messages:In Introduction: “We tested the hypothesis that gene X controls the severity of disease Y.”In Discussion: “We confirmed our hypothesis that gene X is involved in pathway Z.”In Conclusion: “In summary, pathway Z influences the severity of disease Y, and gene X regulates it.”

State the Research QuestionUnify the message:In Introduction: “We tested the hypothesis that gene X controls the severity of disease Y.”In Discussion: “Our observations confirmed the hypothesis that gene X controls the severity of disease Y.”In Conclusions: “In summary, gene X controls the severity of disease Y. Gene X exerts its control through pathway Z.”

Assumptions• Have the authors sufficiently reviewed

the literature/is it relevant to the current study?

• What is the central research question/hypothesis?

• Can the authors’ approach address the hypothesis?

Assumptions

Unclear writing obscures the validity of the approach:

“In this work, we used gene microarray analysis and real-time PCR to test involvement of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) in fatty liver disease.”

AssumptionsMore accurate writing helps clarify whether the methods can address the hypothesis:

“In this work, we used gene microarray analysis coupled with real-time PCR to test whether expression of the gene for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is altered in fatty liver disease.”

Documentation

• Do the authors clearly describe the methods they used?

Documentation

Inadequate/incomplete description of methods is seen as major contributor to the “reproducibility crisis” in science:“[…] studies of published trial reports showed that the poor description of interventions meant that 40–89% were non-replicable” (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2962228-X/fulltext)

DocumentationDo the authors clearly describe the methods they used?• The authors have ultimate insight into how

they did their experiments and responsibility for complete reporting.

• Some journals require authors to follow checklists developed, e.g., by CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials).

• Editors should use these (or a journal’s) checklists to ensure that methods and the experimental design are adequately reported.

Documentation• Do the authors clearly describe the

methods they used?• Are data presented in an appropriate

format (text, tables, or graphs) and have they been statistically evaluated?

DocumentationWhen your plotted data start to look like pins and needles, use a simpler approach…

DocumentationRules of thumb for data presentation:• To report more than three data values, use a

table (or a graph/chart)• To highlight differences between groups, use

bar graphs• To show trends, use line graphs• To visualize correlations, use scatter plots• To show highly complex (“Big”) data, use

heat maps, Venn diagrams, or interactive graphics

Distracting/redundant reporting:“Patients undergoing surgery for ingrown toenails were younger (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2–2.6), had a higher BMI (aOR 1.4, 95% CI 1.3–1.6), and were less likely to wear sandals (aOR 4.3, 95% CI 3.4–4.8) than patients treated conservatively (Table 1).” (Table 1 shows all data given in the text.)Better to say:“Patients undergoing surgery for ingrown toenails were younger, had a higher BMI, and were less likely to wear sandals than patients treated conservatively (Table 1).”

“Univariate linear regressions of preoperative pain and the change in shoulder pain at 2 years (compared with preoperative values) was significant (p < 0.0001) with an r2 = 0.18. The same regression for neck pain was also significant (p < 0.0001) with an r2 = 0.43.”

Unclear/inaccurate/incomplete description of stats:

First step: ask the authors

“Univariate linear regressions of preoperative pain and the change in shoulder pain at 2 years (compared with preoperative values) was significant (p < 0.0001) with an r2 = 0.18. The same regression for neck pain was also significant (p < 0.0001) with an r2 = 0.43.”

Second step: let the authors revise

Authors now state the purpose of the analysis!

“To assess the influence of preoperative shoulder and neck pain severities on the changes in pain from baseline to the 2-year follow-up, we conducted univariate linear regression analyses.”

Third step: further revise (if needed) and ask authors to review the changes

Fourth step: revise reporting of results

“These analyses showed that preoperative shoulder pain and neck pain severities were significant predictors of the changes in shoulder pain (r2 of 0.18, p < 0.0001) and neck pain (r2 of 0.43, p < 0.0001), respectively.”

Documentation• Do the authors clearly describe the

methods they used?• Are data presented in an appropriate

format (text, tables, or graphs) and have they been statistically evaluated?

• Are the data consistent between the different elements (text, tables, figures) and sections (Methods, Results, Discussion)?

DocumentationCommon data mismatches:Between Abstract and ResultsBetween Discussion and ResultsBetween text of the Results and data in TablesMiscalculated totals or percentages in Tables (and Results)

Allocate significant effort to checking consistency among sections and elements

Documentation

• Does the study require ethical review (e.g., that human participants were sufficiently protected or animals humanely treated)?

Implications• Is the Discussion focused on the results

and informed by previous research?• Do the results and their discussion

support the authors’ conclusions — what are the conclusions?

• Do the authors misstate/overstate their findings?

Analytical Editing: Untangling Meaning

“All substance abuse treatment recruitment sites employed 12–16 week cognitive-behavioral relapse prevention treatment models and actively referred clients to 12-step facilitation for aftercare. As such, the control group in this study served as a natural standard of care, consisting of standard aftercare practice.”

Analytical Editing: Untangling Meaning

“All substance abuse treatment recruitment sites employed 12–16 week cognitive-behavioral relapse prevention treatment models and actively referred clients to 12-step facilitation for aftercare. As such, the control group in this study served as a natural standard of care, consisting of standard aftercare practice.” Did aftercare involve both cognitive-behavioral treatment to prevent relapse and referral to 12-step facilitation?

Analytical Editing: Untangling Meaning

“For aftercare, all sites recruiting patients to treat their substance abuse offered 12–16-week cognitive-behavioral therapy to prevent relapses and referred clients to 12-step meetings.”

Or

“All sites recruiting patients to treat their substance abuse offered 12–16-week cognitive-behavioral therapy to prevent relapses; for aftercare, they referred clients to 12-step meetings.”

Tools

Let Microsoft Word Do (Some of) the Work

Tracking time (Word 2010)

• Go to “File” “Info”• To keep accurate time, eitherclose the working document when done or have a second document open and select it whenever you stop work on the first document

Tracking TimeLet Word Do the Work

Let Word Do the WorkChecking consistent comma use in a series

Comma use in a series• Go to “File” “Options”

“Proofing”• Under “When correcting

spelling and grammar in Word” go to “Settings” and choose “always” (or “never”) after “Comma required before last item.”

Let Word Do the Work

Let Word Do the Work

Beware of caveatsLet Word Do the Work

Macros — the writer’s/editor’s big (little-known) helpers

Let Word Do the Work

Write & ride your macros• Go to “View” “Macros”• Hit “Record Macro” and

perform task you want to automate

Let Word Do the Work

Example 1: Placing a query

Let Word Do the Work

• Highlight word/section where you want to place query

• Hit “Record Macro” and name your macro (e.g., “ClarityQuery”)

• Insert comment and write query• Stop recording

Let Word Do the Work

• To run your new macro, highlight text where you want to insert query and go to “View Macros.”

• In “Macros” panel select and run “ClarityQuery.”

Let Word Do the Work

Let Word Do the Work

Time for placing comment and typing query: 15 sec

Time for using macro: 1 sec!

Example 2: using a (prewritten) macro that changes hyphens to em dashes in

tables

Let Word Do the Work

Let Word Do the Work

Time for manually changing hyphens to dashes: 20 sec

Time for using macro: 1 sec!

Taking Lessons from a (Cook)book:Select, Place, Use

Customize your Word Ribbon for quick & easy access to your macros (and other

tools)!

Selecting and Placing Your Favorite Tools Helps You…

One-click macro access

…Use Them

Other Tools

• PerfectIt — a great add-on for Word (PC only)

Enforce consistent style in documents

PerfectItCreate/maintain electronic style

sheets

PerfectItEnsure consistent hyphenation

PerfectItEnsure consistent hyphenation

PerfectItDefine abbreviations

PerfectItDefine abbreviations

PerfectItEnforce style/usage

PerfectItCorrect nonstandard usage

PerfectItFix common usage errors

PerfectItComplete onerous tasks on the fly

PerfectIt does not replace editorial decision making — it helps to make them!

Rules & Tools for Scientific Editing• Analytical (investigative) editing adds

value to scientific communication; fills gap between peer review and standard editing.

• Does not require specialized knowledge — only critical thinking skills and an eye for detail.

• Word’s functions and tools and add-on software help expedite many editing tasks and free up time and energy for analytical tasks.

Thank you!

Comments/questions? E-mail me at mspiering@csrincorporated.com or spieringmj2002@yahoo.com 4250 Fairfax Dr. Suite 500

Arlington, VA 22203

Resources for Scientific EditingBooks:General scientific writing and editing:Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers. Mimi Zeiger, 2nd Ed. McGraw-Hill.Writing Science in Plain English. Anne E. Greene. University Of Chicago PressThe Copy Editor’s Handbook─A Guide for Book Publishing and Corporate Communications. Amy Einsohn, 3rd Ed. University of California Press.Style and usage manuals:AMA Manual of Style. JAMA Archives and Journals, 10th Ed. Oxford University Press.Scientific Style And Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, And Publishers. Council of Science Editors, 7th Ed. (8th edition is in press.)The Chicago Manual of Style. University of Chicago Press Staff, 16th Ed. University of Chicago Press.Garner’s Modern American Usage. Bryan A. Garner, 3rd Ed. Oxford University Press.

Resources contd.Books:

Freelance business and speeding up editorial tasks:The Business of Editing. Richard H. Adin. Waking Lion Press.Dictionaries:The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Ed. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed. Merriam-Webster, Inc.Oxford Dictionary of English, 3rd revised ed. Oxford University Press.Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 32nd Ed. Saunders.Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 28th Ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Resources contd.Books:

Biomedical research:Molecular Biology of the Cell. Alberts et al., 5th Ed. Garland Science. (Good for use as a reference and as a way to read up on fundamental principles and topics of cell biology, molecular biology and genetics, and biochemistry.)

Resources contd.Online:

Copyeditors' knowledge base @ KOK Edit─Katharine O’Moore Klopf’s website (http://www.kokedit.com/ckb.php)An American Editor ─ Richard Adin’s blog about (medical) editing as a business (http://americaneditor.wordpress.com)AMWA Online Forums/Listserves (http://www.amwa.org/forum.asp?startpage=/forum/default.asp)Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers ─ a regularly updated list of publishers suspected to be engaged in unethical publication and business practices (http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/#more-2846)The Scholarly Kitchen ─ provides valuable views and discussion of current topics in scholarly publishing (http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org)

Resources contd.Online:International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ─ provides recommendations on the editing, ethics, and conduct of medical journals (http://www.icmje.org)Equator Network ─ an international resource hub for authors, editors, educators, etc. to improve reporting in health research (http://www.equator-network.org) CONSORT ─ provides a checklist developed by medical investigators and editors for transparent reporting of randomized clinical trials (http://www.consort-statement.org)2014 article series in The Lancet on increasing the value of research ─ discusses ways how authors and editors can improve reporting in studies (http://www.thelancet.com/series/research)Retraction Watch ─ useful resource to follow up on misconduct cases and trends in scholarly publishing, such as plagiarism, authorship disputes, and data fabrication (http://retractionwatch.com)

Resources contd.

Online writing/editing courses:

Writing in the Sciences ─ free 8-week online course taught by Dr. Kristin Sainani at Stanford (http://online.stanford.edu/course/writing-in-the-sciences)Course catalogue of the Editorial Freelancers Association ─ on-site and online classes on various topics (freelance business, editing and proofreading, website design, etc.); fees vary from ~$50 for a seminar to ~$150 for a 5-week online course (for members; discounts are available for taking classes in combos) (http://www.the-efa.org/eve/catalog.php)

Resources contd.

Associations:Council of Science Editors (www.councilscienceeditors.org)Editorial Freelancers Association (www.the-efa.org)Board of Editors in the Life Sciences (www.bels.org)(BELS exam study guide is at http://www.bels.org/becomeeditor/BELSStudyGuide0724121.pdf)American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org)

Online articles on scientific editing and publishingTom Lang’s article on analytical editing, AMWA Journal 28(3):105–109, 2013 (http://www.amwa.org/Files/Journal/2013v28n3_online.pdf; requires AMWA membership)Nature article on the emergence of scientific editing companies catering to academic ESL authors (http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7324-721a)A 2002 article on scientific editing as a career choice (http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2002_02_01/nodoi.12721417129988179760)Reflections on scientific editing from a journal editor (requires subscription) (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40596-013-0028-0)Exposé of “predatory” online publishers (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full)

ToolsPaul Beverley’s (free) collection of >400 useful Word macros—require basic knowledge of how to insert macro scripts into Word’s VBA editor (http://www.archivepub.co.uk/book.html) An American Editor Blogs covering Word macros and additional editing software (https://americaneditor.wordpress.com/category/editorial-matters/editing-tools-editorial-matters)PerfectIt Website (http://www.intelligentediting.com) & link to Editor's Toolkit Ultimate (PerfectIt, Editor’s Toolkit, & EditTools) (http://www.intelligentediting.com/buy-now/editors-toolkit) Editorium Website (http://www.editorium.com) EditTools Website (http://www.wordsnsync.com/edittools.php)Edifix (software to edit references in bibliographies) Website (https://edifix.com) & an editor’s appraisal here (http://editor-mom.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/edifix-subscription-cloud-based-service.html)

Tools contd.Statistics for Biologists—a Web collection of useful guides and articles hosted by Nature (http://www.nature.com/collections/qghhqm)